I need some help with directions...

patrickbeil

.

Jekyll & Hyde

Jekyll & Hyde wrote:

patrickbeil wrote:

My best shots are here: http://pbsportpics.smugmug.com/gallery/806107

J: EXIF is a good thing.
J&H

J: Ooops. Of course the first and only picture I checked in your gallery didn't have any EXIF. My bad.

H: Coming back to look at your other images, I see the conundrum.

J: Inadequate lighting at those night games. Ouch.

H: The rule of thumb when shooting sporting events is to use a shutter speed that doubles the (equivalent) focal length of the lens. Starting at 1/500 sec.

J: So how to find a lens/camera/setting that will accomplish this. And not break the bank or the back.

H: If you shoot using available light, I think you'll have to determine the focal length that is most important to you, and get a fast prime.

J&H

mrcoons

Patrick,

Looking at your photos and the exif data for them I'd say that you need to experiment with white balance. I have noticed shooting football games with my Rebel XT that no 2 games are the same even at the same field. Usually Tungsten is the best setting but not always.

Here is a collection of photos from my last outing:

http://mrcoons.smugmug.com/gallery/876015/1/40037937

The first portion of these shot were shot on AWB because the sun was still up. After the sun went down I tried a couple different settings and ended up using Tungsten most of the time. My pictures (my wife has some in here too) were shot with these lenses in this order: Sigma 80-400mm, Sigma 18-125mm and the last dozen or so with my Tamron 28-75 f2.8 (as I was facing away from the field and wanted to use my fastest lens).

Just keep shooting and trying different WB's and I think you start getting what you are looking for.

pathfinder

patrickbeil wrote:

I have been scouring dgrin for tips, techniques, and advice on how to improve the photos I take. I really feel my amateur-ness when I see the quality of work posted on these forums. I am in need of some advice, and I have noticed that there does not seem to be any lack of it here! Thank goodness for that!

I have only recently begun to wannabe a photographer. I started with a P&S, then realizing I needed more, graduated to a 350D with a Canon 75-300 f4-5.6 lens. My venue is sports, beginning with soccer. Unfortunately, most high school soccer takes place long after the sun sets here in Ohio. I struggle to capture action at night. I have pushed the ISO to 1600, pulled the zoom back to 75 mm (f4), used flash for fill, maxed out the flash at +2, and have delibertly underexposed by 1 to 2 stops, using Tx mode (1/160 - 1/200), and servo focusing. Results are marginal, at best. I have been shooting at L-Best quality size, and next time, I will try RAW.

My best shots are here: http://pbsportpics.smugmug.com/gallery/806107

I know from reading here that the right lens for the job makes it happen. I have been watching ebay like a hawk, mostly tracking the Canon 70-200 f2.8L, both IS and non-IS.

I am on disability due to Parkinson's, with my oldest son in college, and two more shortly behind. Needless to say, I don't have much money to spend. But I realize that to take quality photographs in my chosen area, I need a better, faster lens.

My questions are many, but I will try and limit them...given that money IS an object:

1. How much difference is there with a f2.8 over a f4? Will it make a huge difference? In speed, quality?

You already know the answer. I examined your gallery, and you have some very good shots with a P&S as well as the 350D, captured at the peak moment.

An f2.8 lens is one f-stop faster than an f4, or two f-stops faster than an f5.6; hence, a shot captured at f4 1/60th can be captured at f2.8 at 1/125 at the same ISO. Not a huge difference, but the viewfinder image will also be brighter, and the camera able to focus faster and in dimmer light. These are two additional reasons for preferring faster glass.

And, generally, faster glass, tends ( Not always) to be better quality, and to be able to be used at the max aperatures. Inexpensive lenses tend to be best shot 2 stops down from their maximum aperature. Hence a cheaper f5.6 lens, may not really be best until stopped down to f11. That is a far cry from really being able to shoot at f2.8.

2. Should I consider a prime 200 f2.8L ?

The 200mm f2.8 MAY be a little cheaper, and will be lighter than the 70-200f2.8 IS, but probably won't be noticeably sharper. The 200mm prime will work better with a Teleconverter than the zoom. Altho folks do use the CANON 70-200 f2.8 with a 1.4 TC from time to time too.

3. Some seem to like the Sigma 70-200 2.8 - What are the compromises?

There is no way to start a fight faster, on line, than with the discussion of OEM versus non-OEM lenses. Better to discuss the merits of a specific lens made by a specific manufacturer. Both Canon, Sigma, and Tamron all make fine lenses and a few clunkers. Generally, price WILL give you a clue.
The best OEM lenses ( like Canon's "L" glass )tend to retain their resale value best. I think there is a message there. But Sigma and Tamron make some excellent glass also. I own and shoot with both Tamron and Sigma glass, so I AM NOT a lens snob. My long glass, however, is all OEM.

It comes down to the same compromises we make re: finances and desires at other places in our lives. How important are our images, versus other activities and needs in our lives. Lenses are tools, they need to be good enough to do the job, no better. But no worse either, and certainly they need to not get in the way of good images. Poor quality lenses consume precious resources that could be better used for better glass.

Good lenses last a very long time, and the pain of paying for them passes, while the joy of good glass is almost forever. Poor glass never gets better with time - only worse with each usage.

Don't forget telextenders - they are an inexpensive way to get more reach. The down side is that they are no better than the lens they are connected to. Poor prime + TC will not get better, only worse. Very Good Prime + TC works very well - Go to www.birdsasart.com for some excellent shots using teleconverters.

On-line discussions about lenses tend to center on optical quality and this is important, but rarely do they discuss lens barrel ruggedness, resistance to fogging in humid climates ie sealing, or iris actuation lifetimes. These are important factors also. And ease of getting repairs performed by the manufacturer.

4. If I shoot with a monopod, do I need IS ?

Need? Or want?? I think that IS is the cheapest way to get one or two more f-stops with a given lens, and I think Canon agrees, as they add IS to a greater number of their newer lenses.

IS is not required, but it is really nice to see the image stop shaking as you turn on IS as you peer through a 500mm lenses firmly esconced on a heavy duty tripod. Turn IS off, and the image begins shaking again even with a tripod. Imagine if the wind were howling too, and it was 25 degrees and snow flying around. You can always turn IS off if you don't want it. You cannot turn it on unless it came with the lens

Here is an image I shot with a 600mm lens ( 300+2xTC - I use'em too ) handheld - FREEHAND, not sitting on a sandbag, at f8, 1/13th sec. Yes, that is correct, 1/13th sec - almost 5 stops longer than 1/600th needed to hold 600mm lens steady WITH IS turned off.


Not perfect, but do you think I could have done this at 1/13th second without IS? I know I could not!!

5. Any suggestions on improving my images further? What white balance setting should I use? I used auto WB?

There are a number of discussions about WB on the Sports Thread here on dgrin. Try the search tool and they should pop up.

I try to shoot in RAW and rebalance after the fact, but most sports shooters try to solve the problem using jpgs. It is always a good thing if one of the teams wears a white jersey to provide a nice neutral pixel though.

The task of shooting sports after dark on poorly lit fields is challenging to everyone. Try shooting at iso 3200, underexpose one stop and push in RAW conversion and process with Noise Ninja or Neat Image, or try a Better Beamer if allowed.

Thanks in advance for your replies. Dgrim has been a tremendous source of knowledge and inspiration to me. Thank you all!

patrickbeil

Thank you for your comprehensive reply.
Pathfinder,

The explanation about the differences between fast glass and non-fast really helps. (f11 vs. f2.8) The photo you posted is much clearer than I have been able to get with my low cost zoom, though I usually have it set wide open to decrease the DOF. I did not realize the quality cost associated with that. And that Clearly illustrated the benefits of IS.

I can appreciate your comments about the compromises, as well. I want to do the best I can, but I have to be realistic about it, and set my objectives accordingly.

Your reply is further reinforcement that I can continue to learn from this forum. Thank you for demonstrating and explaining so clearly.

patrickbeil

Thanks for the suggestions
Mark,
Thanks for the suggestions - I will begin to experiment with the WB.

mrcoons

Patrick, My wife took the follow photo with my Canon 75-300mm IS hand holding it on her Canon 300D. This was with Tungston WB at I believe 800 ISO. Just more input for you!